No More Tahiti and Hawaii Re-Brands.

Polaris 10/11 will cover R9-490X all the way down, no mo GCN 1.0, 1.1, GCN1.2 Rebrands

Everything will be 14nm FinFET GCN1.3 w/ DP1.3 and HDMI2.0a and GDDR5X.

Fury/FuryX will continue to be the Top GPU for the "Enthusiast market", (At Least until Vega10 and HBM2 are ready in 2017ish(Now October 2016))
Though it might get a design update a lil to compete w/ the 1070/1080s (Lower Price, Higher Clock Rates, etc.)
But it will be the same GPU as before.
Clock increase and $75 Price Drop would keep it competitive w/ 1070/80. as it's about 10% behind now in DX12 (AOS Bench), That's 3 FPS at 30, 6 FPS at 60, 9 FPS at 90, 12 FPS at 120, 14 FPS at 144 Hz, easily overcome by slight overclock.
Negligible to the Human Eye.

Looking at the Scope of things, AMD Can Get away w/ it easily.

Polaris is a small Die compared to Hawaii XT and Fiji, kepler and Pascal...

Let me put it this way:
-Full 16nm Pascal Die 610mm^2 ( GP100 - 3584 Cuda Cores)
(This Full Pascal GPU is Retailing for $5000 in Pro Market, will launch later for gamer consumer market w/ 16GB max HBM2)
-Full 16nm Pascal Die 436 (est.) mm^2 (GP104 - 2560 Cuda Cores)
(This is the GPU used in GTX1080 and Laser Cut for GTX1070)

-Full 28nm Fiji Die 596mm^2
-Full 28nm HawaiiXT Die is 438mm^2
-Full 28nm TahitiXT Die is 352mm^2
-Full 14nm FinFET Polaris is 232mm^2
(This would put it about 3000ish SPs, Slightly Higher than Hawaii, and AMD has been touting 2.5x Density, so it maybe more than that if 232mm^2 = 580mm^2 density (3700ish SPs)

Alas we'll find out in a couple weeks..

Now,
The Bigger the GPU Die, the less you can put on a wafer, and lower the yields from said wafer due to defects in the manufacturing process and wafers.

The Smaller the GPU Die, the more you can fit on a wafer, and higher yields from said wafer.

ie,
if you can put 4 GPU Dies on a wafer, and the wafer has 1 defect, you lose 25% of the wafer and 1 GPU, left w/ 3 Viable Samples.
if you can put 8 GPU Dies on a wafer, and the wafer has 1 defect, you lose 12% of the wafer and 1 GPU, Left w/ 7 viable Samples.


So in conclusion:
Big GPU Dies Fit Less per Wafer and Produce Lower yields Per wafer, forcing price to skyrocket to pay for manufacturing costs (nVidia and AMD Both Pay for the wafers)

Small GPU Dies fit more per wafer and produce Higher yields per wafer, allowing price to stay lower and sell more units per wafer.

now, Add abotu 2 years to this Equation w/ DX12 and Vulkan Both using Low Level GPU Pooling (explicit multi adapter mode etc).

Add Interposers to the GPU Design, and Suddenly 2 to 4+ GPU Die's Per Substrate Package is more powerful and cheaper than one large chip of competing size.

ie:
4 Schedulers, 4 Compute Engines and 4 Command Processors Maintaining 1500SP's each (6000 Total)
Would Perform better than 1 Scheduler/Command Processor/Compute Engine trying to drive 6000SP's by itself.
Especially in Multiple Viewport Renderers (ie VR)

And Cost Significantly Less to manufacture.


This is where Navi takes over, One Small GPU DIE Design, that is Linked w/ Multiple Dies on the Interposer to Form High Performance GFX Cards.